Potential Problem "Im Worried"

[fiveoboy01]

What I thought. Read the whole thread.

 

[Enem178]

ANDS, go through your camera manual and make sure you have the camera on the best quality JPEG setting if you aren't shooting RAW like mentioned. You might also want to go through your settings and make sure you don't have sharpness and other settings bumped insanely high.

No, ANDS is one of the guys trying to help me out.LOL Im the one with the problem. No, every photo dosent come out like the ones posted on page 1, just some of the JPEG's do. The photo that ANDS posted is actually a RAW file from my camera. I've been instructed to set me JPEG setting to its highest setting, which would be Large/Fine. Thats what i'm going to do from now on, but I just thought if I used the highest quality which is "fine" and smallest size which is "small" I would be ok. As we all see that Fine/Small JPEG dosent look too good. Im just happy there is nothing wrong with my sensor!!

 

[Katier]

If those files aren't edited, then you have to be shooting in JPEG mode and have it on the lowest settings. If you look at the pixel size of the photo, this assumes you have not done ANYTHING to the photo other than download it off your card, put a watermark on it, and upload it, then the file itself is about 2.5Megapixels - from a 10MP camera.

Have you ever shot in RAW? Do you know how to set that up on your camera?

]

exactly my thoughts. That looks like compression noise on a low resolution JPEG to me. CLASSIC lossy JPEG noise in my book.

 

[fiveoboy01]

No, ANDS is one of the guys trying to help me out.LOL Im the one with the problem. No, every photo dosent come out like the ones posted on page 1, just some of the JPEG's do. The photo that ANDS posted is actually a RAW file from my camera. I've been instructed to set me JPEG setting to its highest setting, which would be Large/Fine. Thats what i'm going to do from now on, but I just thought if I used the highest quality which is "fine" and smallest size which is "small" I would be ok. As we all see that Fine/Small JPEG dosent look too good. Im just happy there is nothing wrong with my sensor!!

Good to hear you got it worked out and that there's nothing wrong with your camera.

I'm a proponent of shooting at the highest resolution possible. This way if you happen to get that killer shot, you can crop it and zoom without killing the image quality.

You can always re-size a high quality photo and still end up with a high quality photo, but you can't enlarge a low-quality photo without ruining it.

 

[Enem178]

Yeah but the funny thing is, those photos are straight out the camera with no PP. Does low compression happen just downloading them off the card to my computer?? But like some else told me, if the sensor was bad it would show up on all files JPEG"'s as well as RAW.

 

[gsgary]

ANDS, go through your camera manual and make sure you have the camera on the best quality JPEG setting if you aren't shooting RAW like mentioned. You might also want to go through your settings and make sure you don't have sharpness and other settings bumped insanely high.

Best to set everything to 0 and adjust when you get home if shooting JPG

 

[gsgary]

You're half wrong, and 100% lacking in tact.

Tact is my middle name :lmao:

 

[GeneralBenson]

Yeah but the funny thing is, those photos are straight out the camera with no PP. Does low compression happen just downloading them off the card to my computer?? But like some else told me, if the sensor was bad it would show up on all files JPEG"'s as well as RAW.

That's where you're in the dark I think. JPEG is a compression file, no mater what. All you're picking in the camera is compress it more or less. The camera always takes the same pictures, theoretically, it's what the processor does with the info that counts. Raw doesn't do anything, JPEG compress the file down to a smaller size, from totally acceptable to totally butchered.

 

[Enem178]

^ Hence why just about everyone shoots RAW... Why would a decent dslr put out a lower quality JPEG than my p&s camera??

 

[Enem178]

I think i've narrowed the problem down after about 8 hrs of trial & error. Ive snapped like 150 test shots today trying to see where I went wrong. It turns out that even though I never actually edited the images in PS, something happened when I processed the images to add the watermark!! I just noticed that i've ruined over 200 of images by doing this!!! I have no idea why adding a watermark would cause this but I keep a before and after of 10 images and sure enough the ones without the watermark were still good. I'm really pissed off I ruined my pix but at the same time I happy im getting closer to an answer. Check out the before and after's below (look at the sky)..


NO WATERMARK

WATERMARK

 

[goodoneian]

well whatever program you're using to add the watermark is compressing the jpeg even more. since the file size of the second one is roughly half of the one above it. i know that in photoshop if you save a picture below a certain quality level it will produce images that look pretty close to the problems you're having

 

[Enem178]

Yeah your right because im using PS to process the watermark

 

[mrodgers]

At tip... Never edit and resave your original file. Always edit on a copy of the original or work with the original and save it to a new file leaving the original in tact.

 

[Enem178]

I learned that the hard way!!

 

[AlexColeman]

It looks like posterization, like it can't make a good gradation. Try sending me a raw.
alexcoleman36(number)[email protected]